RE: Resteem The Deadpost Initiative! - Week 16 - Share your most undervalued work + week 15 winners ($11 STEEM prize pool)
This subject resonates with me right now, because I was actually having a pretty intense discussion about this earlier today.
The phrase epistemic humility comes to mind. Most of your essay makes sense to me, in that there is a larger reality differentiated from anyone's particular perception of it. To say "truth is relative" strikes me as reckless in the face of this, however.
This suggests that the fallibility of subjective perception somehow defines truth itself. Truth is simply what has happened and what is happening. Whether anyone knows it or not does not alter this - and I make this statement as a matter of epistemic humility. That very humility provides the usefulness of such a statement, which corresponds with much of what you wrote.
I like your epistemic humility phrase there. In my opinion it demonstrates that we operate with very little bits of the truth, while at the same time, operating fully from it by acknowledging that we don't know what we don't know.
There's different forms of truth in this sense then, isn't there? The truth of one person seeing at point 1a is likely different from the truth of the person observing from point 1b. They may share an objective truth, yet their personal truths are strictly based on where they are, in relation to the point of observation and the context from which they filter their own experience.
This can get very heady very fast. I think that it really does come down to the question, how do you define truth?"
I don't agree or disagree with you here @fireawaymarmot. I am mostly curious as to which truth is truth for you...
Thanks for reading and sharing this very intriguing perspective!